Paizo have deemed the animation of lifeless bones into animated skeletons as Evil, and PFO will automatically count the offending magic-user as Heinous.

So, how about an alternative approach?

Take one skeleton (lifeless bones). Cast Animate Object to make it a non-Evil animated skeleton.

Or... Craft Construct using bones as the base components to make a bone golem. Voila! One skeletal servant/mount/guard that isn't Evil.

It is this sort of inconsistency that often confuses me. Whether the skeleton is animated by Animate Object or Animate Dead, it is effectively the same result - a skeleton that moves. You can point to different spell level requirements and so on, but if animating a skeleton is Evil, why isn't... animating a skeleton?

Do we have indication from GW that one will be Evil and the other not? It feels as if we're in "quack like a duck" territory, at least for Reputation; the Gods may have their own ideas on Alignment effects.

The two ideas perform the same basic function, but they work differently. It's like a train with a Nuclear engine and one of steam. Same functionality, but only one causes cancer/radiation.

Edit: Spellcheck failed me.

GAH! Nuclear reactors are steam! And steam isn't a power source!

Did you mean "A train with a nuclear-reactor-powered steam generator and a train with a coal-powered steam generator"?

Not to mention that soot particles have health consequences on the same order as a properly operating reactors of the same power level, and coal mine fires have health consequences on the same order as catastrophic reactor failures.

I would assume that the server load per pet is roughly the same as the server load per monster; but if everybody has a pet, that could become pretty significant pretty quickly (and if nobody has a pet, why bother?)

I suspect that a middle ground might be to make pets more useful and significant. If building a bone golem is a settlement-level endeavor, then there can be only a handful of bone golems that everyone was still involved in making.

As a side note, putting that idea into the idea file means not having to consider it again until the point in time when settlement-level endeavors need more options.

In any case, bones for animation do not have to be human. If I kill a wolf and use its pelt for a cloak, its teeth for a necklace and its meat to feed myself or my animal companion, animating its bones is simply an extension of this.

Ryan's answer about it being a problem with server load augers very very badly for potential animal domain clerics, druids and rangers with hopes for animal companions, and wizards and witches with familiars.

I am curious about the server setup anyway. I made a small cluster of questions for that in the Lee Hammock videoblog thread. I hope the "one single world" vision will not hamper too many cool additions to the game.

I can see how a regular pet would be intensive for a server: constantly needing pathfinding cpu-power: "follow that PC closely, don't get stuck on your way to that monster" and so forth.

I guess pets that act like DOT's would be easier to implement (basically a spell-effect that attaches itself to a target) but that would not really give the "companion" feel.

Even if there were no issues with the server, and the tech was available immediately, pets have a huge effect on game balance so we'd want to take the time to do them right. Even a weak pet gives you potentially twice as many actions per round, a better ability to distract targets, and a big chunk of HP that your opponents may have to spend their attacks on to get at you/ongoing damage if they ignore it to focus on you.

The major areas where I think we're likely to include pets are:

Pets as a role feature, where the other capabilities of the role are balanced against having a permanent pet (e.g., Rangers and Druids)

"Pets" as a short term summon, where the potential damage output and distraction potential of the creature and its summon duration are balanced against other spells of the same level

Pets, as DeciusBrutus mentions and Ryan has suggested before, as a group undertaking primarily used in formation-scale combat

That, of course, leaves Animate Dead off the list in the traditional tabletop implementation of "I cast a spell, and now I have a permanent pet (possibly up to a control limit in HD)." There's a reason that's evil other than that undead are bad; it's that PCs aren't often allowed access to it, so it can't mess up the PC balance equation. I ran a campaign for evil PCs once, and the pile of undead minions the wizard and cleric started to gather as they leveled were a huge force multiplier over what good PCs would have at those levels.

Even with a significant up front cost, the problem is that that's an up front cost. Your necromancer could save up money to bank a hundred minions, and to anyone you fight that should be an even match it very much looks like you're just always a few pets ahead of what they can do, and they're suckers for not banking their own minions. And then it's skeletons everywhere (leading to the most egregious case for server problems that Ryan mentions).

So, and note that this is speculation because we don't have any pet tech yet so there's no telling what the ramifications and difficulties will be, I think:

We're likely to eventually have interesting undead-creation options for settlement and formation-level effects (balanced against other ways you can make AI allies for the settlement).

We may have some undead creation options to do things with the non-combat systems (e.g., undead harvesters).

It's not out of the question to have a "skeletons claw from the ground for a few rounds" spell balanced against other summons (maybe stronger that equal level summons by virtue of granting the Heinous flag).

Maybe we'll have a Ranger/Druid-style permanent undead companion for Necromancers (but there are a lot of feat option concerns with that for Wizards as opposed to Rangers and Druids where we know from the beginning that we expect them to have a companion and can build that trade off into their other role systems).

But will you cast a spell and consume some onyx and now you have a pet that follows you around until it dies with no additional cost to your build? It seems unlikely to me. And the same thinking applies to non-necromantic minions like golems.

It sounds befitting to have undead as a formation risen for armies by a coven of undead casters. I mean a normal skeleton should be very easy to defeat (not referring to pathfinder where the rules are different) but in large numebers overwhelming and relentless and unaffected by panic etc. At least that's the warhammer fantasy battle interpretation of undead.

They could be blocking/sapping units for example holding other units for an eg of use.

For actual pet companions: Usually these are a nightmare to balance in mmorpgs I believe:

1. OP then it's like 2 vs 1.
2. Under-powered then they're not worth using as your build is sub-optimal.

So, it would be quite cool if it was a co-op mode with synergy split between 2 players (one the ranger and a friend as the pet) and work on their attacks working together? Just a fun idea tbh to get rid of the difficult AI?!

Edit: Another way to work with the AI is some sort of customization of it within a range for different things you want so you allow players to tweak the AI to tailor specific roles they can come up with?

Paizo have deemed the animation of lifeless bones into animated skeletons as Evil, and PFO will automatically count the offending magic-user as Heinous.

So, how about an alternative approach?

Take one skeleton (lifeless bones). Cast Animate Object to make it a non-Evil animated skeleton.

Or... Craft Construct using bones as the base components to make a bone golem. Voila! One skeletal servant/mount/guard that isn't Evil.

It is this sort of inconsistency that often confuses me. Whether the skeleton is animated by Animate Object or Animate Dead, it is effectively the same result - a skeleton that moves. You can point to different spell level requirements and so on, but if animating a skeleton is Evil, why isn't... animating a skeleton?

I am wondering if they really are the same thing. I am not familiar with PF TT rules, but in 3.5 (and below) animated objects did not often move and act without direction. Animated dead did when the fell out of control from their creator.

The two ideas perform the same basic function, but they work differently. It's like a train with a Nuclear engine and one of steam. Same functionality, but only one causes cancer/radiation.

Edit: Spellcheck failed me.

GAH! Nuclear reactors are steam! And steam isn't a power source!

Did you mean "A train with a nuclear-reactor-powered steam generator and a train with a coal-powered steam generator"?

Not to mention that soot particles have health consequences on the same order as a properly operating reactors of the same power level, and coal mine fires have health consequences on the same order as catastrophic reactor failures.

Pardon my misnomer. The point being one is powered by something relatively harmless vs. something highly toxic. It's apples and oranges.

I am wondering if they really are the same thing. I am not familiar with PF TT rules, but in 3.5 (and below) animated objects did not often move and act without direction. Animated dead did when the fell out of control from their creator.

As far as I understand the evil part of necromancy is not just desecrating the body; the most evil part is that by turning the corpse into an undead, you prevent the soul from moving on. The body is animated through negative energy as well, which is different from Animate Object which is regular old arcane energy.

I was getting worried for a sec with Ryan's & Stephen's talk about why pets are bad/difficult for the server. Especially as someone who wants to play a Druid. So I'm happy to hear that they intend for this to be a core part of the Ranger & Druid classes.

In relation to necromancy, I think it would work out just fine to use undead to protect settlements, large scale battles and especially for harvest and hauling.

Perhaps the choice to have a settlement protected by skeletons might be quite cheap and give you a large volume, while not necessarily being as good as expensive live troops. A settlement could also have more expensive undead minions, which have different abilities from live troops so it all balances out.

Actually, there is nothing in the description about Animate Dead binding souls or even bringing an evil spirit in to possess the skeleton. All it says it that it animates a dead body, the same description as animating a lifeless object.

Now we know that necromancers are bad people because that's what the books (and much genre literature) tell us, but the assumption in Animate Dead being evil is that they are bad because... they are bad. In game fluff terms the necromancer is the pale and antisocial guy who has an unhealthy fascination with dead people.

However, this is assuming a lot of flavour and genre. The rulebook itself merely describes animating a skeleton as

The undead can be made to follow you, or they can be made to remain in an area and attack any creature (or just a specific kind of creature) entering the place. They remain animated until they are destroyed. A destroyed skeleton or zombie can't be animated again.

Regardless of the type of undead you create with this spell, you can't create more HD of undead than twice your caster level with a single casting of animate dead. The desecrate spell doubles this limit.

The undead you create remain under your control indefinitely. No matter how many times you use this spell, however, you can control only 4 HD worth of undead creatures per caster level. If you exceed this number, all the newly created creatures fall under your control, and any excess undead from previous castings become uncontrolled. You choose which creatures are released. Undead you control through the Command Undead feat do not count toward this limit.

Skeletons: A skeleton can be created only from a mostly intact corpse or skeleton. The corpse must have bones. If a skeleton is made from a corpse, the flesh falls off the bones.

Zombies: A zombie can be created only from a mostly intact corpse. The corpse must be that of a creature with a physical anatomy.

The spell has an Evil descriptor and the description of skeletons says that they are "the animated bones of the dead, brought to unlife through foul magic". So the spell is Evil because it is labelled as such, not because it assumes that animating bones is inherently evil.

If I use magic to animate the skeleton of a horse, is that different from animating a hide cloak? What about using a bone wand? Leather shoes?

I'm not saying that necromancers should be Good, nor that free-willed undead shouldn't be evil, but to say that it is evil to animate bones using one spell, but quite alright to do so with another, seems a bit of an oversight (or possibly a loophole).

In any case, if Golems and Constructs are not appearing then the point is moot.

Actually, there is nothing in the description about Animate Dead binding souls or even bringing an evil spirit in to possess the skeleton. All it says it that it animates a dead body, the same description as animating a lifeless object.

Now we know that necromancers are bad people because that's what the books (and much genre literature) tell us, but the assumption in Animate Dead being evil is that they are bad because... they are bad. In game fluff terms the necromancer is the pale and antisocial guy who has an unhealthy fascination with dead people.

However, this is assuming a lot of flavour and genre. The rulebook itself merely describes animating a skeleton as
** spoiler omitted **...

I believe it's the type of magic (negative energy) and how it is done that makes it evil. Yes it's very similar to animate object. But animate object doesn't use negative energy to bring the bones to life. It becomes more obvious with the higher level undead creation spells that actually trap and bind the soul to the body. At least with a skeleton you're not summoning the previous host back to make it move, as its a mindless undead.

My viewpoint is that the act of summoning and binding negative energy to the bones is inherently corrupting to the spell caster, while animate object is using a process to make the same object get up and move, but doesn't affect the caster. You could temporarily doe something similar with telekinesis as well. Though it would require concentration to move the corpse around.

We also have to remember that good and evil are much more of an absolute force in Pathfinder and similar fantasy games. It's evil because it's evil

Unless I'm missing an errata that excludes mindless undead, raising someone as even a skeleton prevents True Resurrection (and all the lesser rez spells) from working until the undead is destroyed.

I may try to get the official Paizo line on the metaphysics of undeath in Golarion soon, but I suspect it will not be along the lines of, "Oh, just some skeletons? That's fine, then, many an upstanding wizard finds a need for skeletons."

I'm not aware of any non-evil wizards in the canon that are using bone golems either. (Though I did enjoy inventing a side plot in my Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign where the PCs found a letter from their necromancer antagonist chiding their creepy-golem maker antagonist about failure to commit :) .)

Caveat: It has been declared that Constructs and Golem are unlikely to see life (heh) in PFO, so this is purely academic and theoretical as far as PFO goes.

@Kobold Cleaver: Interestingly, although the Flesh Golem requires Animate Dead, the Bone Golem can use Animate Object. I don't see anything in their construction requirements or description that makes them evil (or require necromancy, come to that).

@Stephen: I don't know if Paizo are aware of the loophole, but I can't be the first player to think that Animate Object might just as usefully be used on a skeleton as (say) a scarecrow or wooden mannequin.

The Raise Dead issue is only if the skeleton is classed as undead. Now obviously using Animate Dead will create an undead skeleton with all the naughtiness that that suggests, but Animate Object and Permanency create animated lifeless bones ("You imbue inanimate objects with mobility and a semblance of life") that do pretty much the same job but without any sort of necromancy or RAW evil designator.

Admittedly we are talking higher level casting, but there is no RAW reason I can see why an animated skeleton isn't as viable as an animated wooden doll. If the caster's ethical position is such that using dead bones is fine (such as a druid who kills an animal but then makes sure the maximum amount of use is taken from the corpse), then creating an animated mount, guard or other servant from bones isn't a problem.

It is only adding fluff and other people's reactions that might be problematic, but that is not enough to make such an act Evil in the sense of the Pathfinder Alignment system.

Undead would seem to make great manual labourers for building or repairing defences: Simple instructions and tirelessly work. I would normally expect them to be very limited in combat unless they're especially powerful necromantic magic eg vampires or liches or in excessive numbers bearing down on a target. Such death magic needs feeding however.

Another idea: Necromantic magic could gain more power the more damage/slaying/death that occurs to raise undead? So initially not able to gain extra magic to raise undead but the more slaughter the more they can yield such?

I'll admit that I'm a tad disappointed about the probable lack of Constructs because I was planning on using them as lookouts and guards on my sacred grove. Nothing like a few scrying, animated, fear-causing scarecrows and wood golems (disguised as trees) to say, "Warning. Nature Witch At Work. Keep Out."

I'll have to wait for the launch and final implementation of the settlement rules to see how I can make the grove idea work. It might be that it won't.

For example to combine the idea of "manual labour" + "death magic boost on slaying/death": When during a siege or even better after an unsuccessful siege (and the stench of fresh death is like a thick heavy blanket in the air) defences are damaged and various players are slaughtered, then you could have the perfect conditions for summon undead to repair/barricade up defences? Of course if actual skeleton models are animated, then they are targets for attackers but adding extras to the defence of a settlement could be a useful niche in that context.

A few spectres or wraiths in residence would be enough to dissuade any tunneling or overnight siege efforts, and a few ghouls and ghasts at the top of the walls make climbing them a dangerous proposition.

Order point 1) When creating a settlement you define many things. Purely theoretically you add a mechanic that determines the... type? You state whether it is going to be a "mundane" city, a "divine" city or a "necromatic" city.

A mundane is made of guards and NPC armies comprised of living, native creatures and machines (including dragons and similar creatures of all varieties excluding undead and celestial/fiendish)

A divine city is made of guards and NPC armies comprised of living, native creatures and celestial/fiendish beings (including dragons and similar creatures only of those types)

A necromatic city is made of guards and NPC armies comprised of living, native creatures and undead beings (including dragons and similar creatures only of those types)

Order point 2) have a high-tier skill class (read leadership) that allows the keeping/recruitment of extraplanar, mundane, and/or undead.

Extraplanar has the least total numbers able to be recruited but the "strongest" types. Mundane has middling for both numbers and "strength". Undead have the most numbers but the least "strength". Make the requirements for these skills extremely high so only dedicated controllers would pursue this. Rather than being pure minion gaining, include diplo, leadership, bluff, etc. skills instead of "more minions" or "better minions" in some areas.

Order point 3) Keep certain "HD" monsters/creatures/beings from being able to be controlled by an individual, but rather only by settlement or formation leaders. Include a "HD" cap system for individuals who do spec into that class type, such as One level 20, two level 16s, three level 12s and so on.

The concern is of course (ignoring the technical problems) "well if everyone has the option they are going to use it". I'm afraid that isn't so. People who want to be controllers will choose it, but they themselves will be weak, all their points going into their minions not themselves essentially. The unique way XP is gained here ensures that this will not be a problem. Someone who has had the time to become a level 20 (melee) Fighter / level 20 (undead) Leader is going to be strong no matter what. And by being the "Leader" class, you open yourself up to vulnerability. If you can't use proper tactics the enemies will be able to target you and kill your squishy self, not having to deal with your minions at all.

Order point 4) No pets for non-pet classes. I'm sorry, but if you wanted a pet you should have gone with a pet-orientated classes. You will get a mount (I assume) and that should be enough. If you want minions, level into the "Leader" class.

Order point 5) Restatement: Leader class skills should have a LOT of pre-reqs to train them, and have very specific buildings (e.g. outsiders only at appropriate shrines/holy areas, mundane only at certain recruitment facilities, and so on). Building options is limited in settlements, so not all settlements will have the training needed, this is true for all class types.

Order point 6) This "Leader" class will be "uncommon" by my judgement, which is to say it will be used and prevalent but it won't be a primary thing. You will see it in your travels but it won't be enough that every area can/will train it, and even if that place does it might not be the right type.

Expansion of the Leader class skill set

When you choose "Leader" you decide type of creature from the three afore mentioned choices. The skill trees are the "same" for all types, but the minions themselves have different stats and numbers (again as mentioned before)

From there you have three "paths" you can choose: harvester, crafter, or soldier, which you then build off of. I could go into depth but I think this is clear. basically as you progress your minions progress along with, selecting from what type you choose (undead, mundane, extraplanar). Each tier has an associated creature with it. for instance, a tier one undead gets 3 human skeletons. a tier one mundane gets 3 humans, and a tier one extraplanar gets one aasimar if good or one tiefling if evil.

obviously will be flushed out in dev, but on a whole the two ideas (settlement and class) are easily workable. I highly recommend the class option as being implemented, it is not a "wouldn't it be cool" but rather a legitimate class some people will want to employ that can be used for more than just pvp.

Cleric or Wizard paths could give major stat bonuses to summoned minions, e.g. higher HP. But the downside is that they can't summon that many at all.

In other words and Cleric or Wizard can summon a stronger minion, but this "Leader" (I am thinking "Controller" might be a better term) can control and use more effectively more than one.

You have to remember that (apart from undead and domination) most summoned things have a mind of their own. Clerics and wizards usually don't have automatic control over the beings they summon, just because they summoned them. usually some form of bargaining needs to take place. The "Leader" on the other hand is the LEADER of the minions he/she has. This means that he/she controls the actions those minions make, rather than just having a bot following around.

The difference in that specific case is A wizard/cleric summons a "fire-and-forget" (except it is not necessarily a smart-bomb that does what you program it to) whereas the "leader" is basically a chess player moving his pieces.

An example would be in the game "Dungeon Defenders". Most characters place a turret/have a pet that gets put at X location and then kind of does its own thing there, fulfilling its purpose. Attack turrets attack, barriers block movement, etc. while the character kind of ignores it except for minor mantainence and instead focuses on getting stuck in on the hordes. However, the "summoner" character instead of placing turrets, creates "minions" and instead of getting stuck in, he goes into an overwatch mode and directly supervises these large numbers of minions, telling them where to go, what actions to take, etc.

Obviously a response here is the "multiclass" wizard/cleric and "leader" where your leader allows you the control and multitudes with the related bonuses and the wizard/cleric gives the minions whatever associated bonuses there. This is a multi-class option that can and will be utilized, and by having a variance in the types/ abilities of things summoned, and trying to balance power vs numbers you make it so there is no "meta build". And also multiclassing gets rid of the dedicated bonus, so it won't be OP in that regard.

I know there is a summoner class in PFrpg but I haven't looked into it. Either way, I don't want to compare that to this because I think the mechanics could easily be extremely different and don't want to bring in any misconceptions. Also the "Leader" tree is designed for more than just combat summoning, but can be used in more situations, as well as the fact that it may not incorporate summoning at all. I based it more off of the "Leadership" feat and expressed ideas/ideals than anything else.

In most cultures in Golarion, making the deceased do your bidding is not considered good behavior, whether you're animating their bones with evil spells or just wiring their skeletons up like marionettes.

In most cultures in Golarion, making the deceased do your bidding is not considered good behavior, whether you're animating their bones with evil spells or just wiring their skeletons up like marionettes.

In many cultures, desecrating the dead is, of itself, considered evil. I can certainly see how turning someones bones into your puppet would be considered evil even without calling on dark forces to do it.

I would rather see summoning celestial beings or animating normal objects be used in the game for nonevil force multipliers rather than thw bones of the fallen.

Besides, could you imagine commanding "Release the hassock!" To send your minion into battle? Note this doesn't address making a skeleton out of wood... but that seems more like a golemn than a skeleton.

In many cultures, desecrating the dead is, of itself, considered evil. I can certainly see how turning someones bones into your puppet would be considered evil even without calling on dark forces to do it.

I would rather see summoning celestial beings or animating normal objects be used in the game for nonevil force multipliers rather than thw bones of the fallen.

What about the bones of a sheep? A chicken? A turtle?

Don't forget that 99.9% (disclaimer - this is not a real statistic) of dead creatures are not human but still leave behind perfectly usable bones or exoskeletons.

Is magically animating a dog skeleton really any worse ethically than boiling a horse skeleton down for glue?

In many cultures, desecrating the dead is, of itself, considered evil. I can certainly see how turning someones bones into your puppet would be considered evil even without calling on dark forces to do it.

I would rather see summoning celestial beings or animating normal objects be used in the game for nonevil force multipliers rather than thw bones of the fallen.

What about the bones of a sheep? A chicken? A turtle?

Don't forget that 99.9% (disclaimer - this is not a real statistic) of dead creatures are not human but still leave behind perfectly usable bones or exoskeletons.

Is magically animating a dog skeleton really any worse ethically than boiling a horse skeleton down for glue?

When you lose control of your glue (for some reason) does it run wild and attack everything that it senses?

I would steer you in the direction of Superglue. Yes, that attacks anything that comes into contact with it (except for what you want to stick).

To address your question, however, when do Animated Objects run wild? I am not aware of such a rule and can't see anything about it in the spell description. Even Constructs only go beserk if that is part of their design.

Stephen has said that there will probably be no Constructs or similar 'Pets' available to individual players (even Animal Companions and Familiars are in the balance). Therefore the ethics of building and using a Construct or permanent Animated Object are likely to be purely academic.

I would agree with you that it shouldn't be Evil, but also agree with a few posters who have mentioned that they wouldn't like to be living close to someone who happily uses bones to build such mannequins. PCs are meant to mirror our own moral and ethical stance to a degree, and I even got a little disturbed by Damien Hirst's range of preserved animals used as art!

That, I feel is where the fun of role-playing comes in. My character happily builds an animated mount out of horse bones, and has animated wolf bones as guards, but another character is horrified and tries to stop her. Fun for all but not an automatic in-game 'Heinous' hit or move to an Evil alignment.

And many people agree that turning horses into glue is "evil" and must be stopped.

The point is, it is in the eye of the beholder, and if it causes someone else pain, then it is evil. Whether or not the act itself, without any bias or opinions/beliefs is evil, if someone thinks it is evil than it is, esp. in PfO where unnecessary violence/pain is highly frowned upon (speaking here is in the RP sense with GW standing in as the gods, not the meta-game sense of griefing and whatnot).

If it is not evil according to RAW, and they include it, I believe that it should be "ok". It is their prerogative, however.

Note that while Pathfinder Online looks to the Pathfinder RPG rules for inspiration, it will actually hew even more closely to the Pathfinder campaign setting than to the rules. Which is to say that "Pathfinder Online uses the Pathfinder campaign setting" is more true than "Pathfinder Online uses the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game rules."

Importantly, the Pathfinder RPG rules are designed to support settings other than our own, and so not everything in the rules necessarily has a place in our setting. Similarly, something that's not defined as evil by the rules may be viewed as evil by cultures or organizations within our setting.